Appeal No. 2000-1594
Application No. 08/543,101
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-19, 21 and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roach, Hara and
Levanto.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Roach, Hara, Levanto and Krenz.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the answer (Paper No. 11, mailed March 30, 1999) for
the Examiner’s reasoning, the appeal brief (Paper No. 10, filed
February 22, 1999) and the reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed May
17, 1999) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-19, 21
and 22, Appellants point out that Roach dismisses radiotelephone
techniques as unsuitable for use in paging systems (brief, page
8). Additionally, Appellants assert that Roach attempts to avoid
undesirable disruptions of a current activity when messages are
received and to reduce the cost of the system by using existing
components and transmitting only on the control channel of the
cellular system (id.). Appellants argue that the Examiner’s
rejection ignores Roach’s clear teachings regarding the use of
existing equipment and incorporates the complex data modulation
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007